Assigning blame for violence

In the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the first impulse was to place blame for the tragedy on America's obsession with guns. That was expected. Half the firearms in the entire world are in the United States. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years have happened here.

Comment

By JIM COOGAN

capecodtimes.com

By JIM COOGAN

Posted Jan. 15, 2013 at 2:00 AM

By JIM COOGAN
Posted Jan. 15, 2013 at 2:00 AM

» Social News

In the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the first impulse was to place blame for the tragedy on America's obsession with guns. That was expected. Half the firearms in the entire world are in the United States. Eleven of the 20 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years have happened here.

Demands that Congress do something to curb violence focused on types of weapons that might be banned, better checks on who can purchase guns, and whether the Supreme Court erred in its 2008 ruling that gun owners have individual rights to

possess them. Once again,

the Second Amendment was front and center in the

debate.

But in looking at the roots of violence in this country, perhaps the attention is misplaced. The real source of violence in America may not be the Second Amendment. It might well be the First.

The First Amendment is perhaps the broadest of our liberties. In guaranteeing freedoms in areas like religion, speech, assembly and petition, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that Americans would have the maximum independence in exercising these civil rights. But it's a legitimate question whether the extension of these protections has in some instances gone far beyond the original intent of the drafters.

A lot of the push toward violence can be directly traced to the daily exercise of hate speech practiced by some of the nation's edgier radio talk shows. With little regard for the consequences of consistently unleashing a drumbeat of negativism, fear mongering and anger, the radio shock jocks stir their already angry listeners toward potential violent action. Rather than carry on any kind of balanced discourse, these provocateurs launch one-sided diatribes that often play fast and loose with the truth.

And when their screeds

lead to violence, they disown any responsibility for what happens. Joyce Kaufman, a Florida-based talk show personality, whose words "If

ballots don't work, bullets will," inspired a listener in

2012 to threaten a massacre

in the Broward County schools. A look at the online comments about any legitimate news story reveals rampant racism, homophobia, misogyny and paranoia. The forum posters are protected by the First Amendment and shielded by the anonymity that goes with unattributed responses.

Another factor that promotes violence and that is protected by the First Amendment is the violent lyrics increasingly found in contemporary music. In "The Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence," by Bruce Johnson and Martin Cloonan, the authors point to the nexus between today's music and violence. Referencing depraved and often brutal lyrics, they cite the negative aspects of aggressive music and its pervasiveness in American culture. The "ubiquity effect," they claim, dulls us to the long-term effects of what the music industry is doing to youthful listeners.

Popular artists make their living extolling vile acts, at the same time finding support from corporate sponsors who profit handsomely from the endorsement of behavior that would have been out of bounds a generation ago. And we know that millions of young people see these entertainers as positive role models. Hours of playing violent video games that are filled with sadism, cruelty and bloodshed only add to a warped sense of values and the increased levels of aggression that we are seeing.

Throw in the typical violent fare that Americans view regularly at the movies, and we have a toxic mix that hardens the senses to what is real while at the same time promoting anti-social behavior. It's doubtful that the framers had anything like this in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.

Gun advocates frequently make the argument that it's not the gun that kills, it is the person who pulls the trigger. Taken in isolation, it is a statement that is hard to disagree with. But with the culture of violence that permeates America today, and the easy availability of guns, should we be all that surprised when an unhinged individual picks one up and goes on a killing rampage?

Jim Coogan is a Cape Cod Times columnist. Email him at coogan206@gis.net